On 5/9/19, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > Paul B Mahol (12019-05-09): >> I got into possession of code that is better than atempo for very >> small scale factors (0.5). >> >> So I gonna write new filter which would also be able to change both >> tempo and pitch at same time. > > My requirements stay the same: > > If it does the same thing, then it belongs in atempo, not in a separate > new filter. > > This is a generic principle: if they do the same thing, from the users' > perspective of the result and not from the developer perspective of the > implementation, then they should have the same interface, and the users > should get the best choice by default as much as possible. > > This is not an isolated problem, and this is not a whim from me: we had > a discussion during the last VDD about the proliferation of scaling > filters, and there was agreement that it was not a good direction for > users. We also have a dozen de-interlacing filters and another dozen of > de-noising filters. We cannot go back in time to prevent that > proliferation, but we can prevent it from spreading farther, do > resamplers and other kind of filters.
There can not be one ultimate denoising filter. Your reasoning is illogical. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".